Law

Intellectual Property
Legal Principles of International Intellectual
Property Regime- An Introduction to TRIPS

Development Team
Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Professor (Dr.) Ranbir Singh Vice Chancellor,

National Law
University, Delhi
Paper Coordinator Mr. Yogesh Pai Assistant Professor of
Law, National Law
University, Delhi
Content Writer (CW) Mr. Pratyush Kumar Faculty, National Law
University, Delhi
Content Reviewer (CR) Mr. Yogesh Pai Assistant Professor of
Law, National Law
University, Delhi
 Module Detail
Subject name Law

Paper name Intellectual Property

Module name/ Title Legal Principles of International Intellectual Property

Regime: Introduction to Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”)

Module Id Law/IP/#05

Pre- requisites Introduction to IP; need; economics of intellectual property;

justifications;
Objectives  To provide introduction to the legal principles under
TRIPS
 To provide overview of the standards of protection in
TRIPS agreement
 To understand the benefits and criticisms of the
TRIPS Agreement
Key words Intellectual Property, National Treatment, Most Favoured
Nation treatment, Geographical Indication.

2
1.1 Introduction:
The legal principles forming the foundation for International Intellectual
Property (“IP”) Law governing the world today have been fairly old. It
began with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
1883 (“Paris Convention”) followed with the Berne Convention for the
protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886 (“Berne Convention”). Both
these conventions were also negotiated, renegotiated and amended over
the years before they were finally embedded in TRIPS through the
Uruguay Round of Negotiations (1986-94) which came into effect from 1st
January, 1995. The three main features of the agreement are:
i. Standards – it sets the minimum standard of protection to IP
provided by each member country.
ii. Enforcement – it entails domestic legislations, procedures and
remedies provided by member countries for the enforcement of IP
rights.
iii. Dispute settlement – dispute settlement is a unique feature of World
Trade Organization (“WTO”) which provides for a complex system
of dispute settlement through Dispute Settlement Understanding
(“DSU”).

Learning Outcomes:
Students will be able to:
 Assess the importance of international intellectual property protection;
 Understand the flaws in international IP protection prior to the TRIPS
Agreement
 Understand how TRIPS general principles complement the WTO system
 Understand the nature of protection for different categories of IP enshrined in
TRIPS Agreement
 Understand the nature of relationship between TRIPS and dispute settlement
3
and the type of complaints that can be made in relations to TRIPS at the WTO
dispute settlement
Principles which got enshrined in the Berne Convention, 1886 which forms
the bedrock of IP law today are:
a. Principle of National Treatment;
b. Principle of “Automatic” Protection;
c. Principle of “independence” of Protection;
d. Principle of minimum standard of protection (works and rights to be
protected, duration of protection);
e. Moral rights of authors

Principles enshrined in the Paris Convention, 1883:

a. National Treatment;
b. Right of priority;
c. Common Rules including:
1. Patents (inventor having the right to be named);
2. Compulsory license;
3. Marks (filing, registration and renewal of marks)
d. Industrial designs;
e. Trade names;
f. Indications of source;
g. Unfair competition

1.2 Principle of National Treatment:

According to this principle, a treatment no less favourable is provided to
nationals of other member countries as nationals of one’s own country.
This principle is enshrined very much in the General Agreement on Tariffs

4
and Trade (“GATT”) and forms one of the bedrock principles of WTO
structure.

The principle and its exceptions have been included in Paris Convention
(1967), the Berne Convention (1971) and Rome Convention 1961 (Rome
Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms
and Broadcasting Organizations).

Case 1: “Havana Club” Trademark Dispute, WT/DS176/AB/R

Brief Facts:

In this case, the European Union (’EU’) challenged a United States law
alleging that “it prohibited the registration and enforcement in the United
States of a Cuban trademark, ’Havana Club’ rum, which was licensed to a
French company”. They further alleged that it was in violation of the WTO
Agreement. The text of § 211(a) (2) of the impugned statute states:

“No U.S. Court shall recognize, enforce, or otherwise validate any assertion of
rights by a designated national based on common law rights or registration ... of
such a confiscated mark, trade name, or commercial name.”

WTO Dispute Settlement Board Decision (WTO DSB):

The WTO DSB held that the U.S. statutory provision, § 211(a) (2) violated
Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement.

Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement requires that “Members shall make

available to right holders civil judicial procedures concerning the enforcement of

5
any intellectual property right covered by this Agreement …” The Panel held
that because § 211 restricted foreign nationals' access to U.S. courts to
enforce intellectual property rights, it is in violation of Article 42 of TRIPS.
Claims and Decisions:
Claim by EU:
The European Community claimed that Ҥ 211 is discriminatory
because it forces "designated nationals," which includes Cubans and any
“national of any foreign country who is a successor in interest to a
designated national”, to meet the requirements of § 211 in addition to
successfully completing an Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
hearing”.

“U.S. nationals, in contrast, are not required to meet the requirements of §

211, but are only required to undergo an OFAC hearing.

Claims by US: Decisions:

US claimed that the Cuban entity in the Rejected, because this argument
hypothetical situation would always be assumes, that the original owner of the
permitted to enforce its trademark U.S. trademark is also the original
rights because "original owners are owner of the confiscated Cuban
always in a position to consent trademark which is not always the
expressly to their own assertion of case.
rights.
This hypothetical situation would Also rejected because it would only be
never occur because the Cuban entity true for statutory registration rights.
would have registered its trademark Section 211 (a) (2) applies not only to
before the restrictions included in § 211 these rights, but also to common law
(a) (2) were put in place. rights.
The Cuban entity in the hypothetical Again rejected because the Board
situation could be considered an found that in certain instances a

6
 "unblocked" entity under certain Cuban national would not qualify for
provisions of the Cuban embargo, "unblocked" status even under the
meaning that it would be treated the Cuban Embargo.
same as a U.S. entity and that § 21 1(a)
(2) would not apply.”
Source:
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar
ticle=1578&context=njilb

Final Decision:
So, The Appellate Board held that “since non-U.S. successors-in-interest would be
forced to surpass an "extra hurdle" that was not required of U.S. nationals, the
provision provided less favorable treatment. Therefore, the AB held that § 211 violated
the national treatment provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris
Convention”.

1.3 Principle of “Automatic” Protection: Unconditional protection without

compliance with any formality in all member countries

1.4 Principle of “independence” of Protection: IP rights protection is

afforded irrespective of whether protection is afforded in the country of
origin or not.

1.5 Principle of minimum standard of protection: This principle concerns

a. Works and rights to be protected,
b. Duration of protection.
Rights Protected by Copyright
For Copyright, the different rights protected are:
a. Translation;
b. Adaptations and arrangements of works;
c. Performance in public;
d. Recitation; 7
e. Communication;
f. Broadcast;
g. Reproductions;
1.6 Moral rights of authors: It includes: -
a. Right to claim authorship of the work;
b. Right to object to any mutilation, deformation or any modification;
c. Right against any derogatory action that would be prejudicial to the author’s
honour and reputation;

The TRIPS Agreement does not oblige WTO members to grant moral rights.
However, if WTO members are party to the Berne Convention, they will have
to independently comply with the mandate under that Convention.

1.7 Purpose of TRIPS Agreement: The preamble of TRIPS Agreement (along

with Article 7) clearly lists out the purpose of the agreement in no less
certain terms:
a. To reduce distortions and impediments to international trade,
b. To promote effective and adequate protection of intellectual property
rights,
c. To ensure that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual
property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.

TRIPS Article 7: Objectives

The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should
contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer
and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and
users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and
economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

8
1.8 All the other WTO agreements essentially affect border measures whereas
TRIPS affects domestic legislations of member countries and has
significantly altered the concept of sovereignty. Private parties claim
rights provided under TRIPS within domestic jurisdictions that are
referred to as persons of other member countries. Article 1.3 defines
persons.

1.9 Article 1.1 mandates member countries to give effect to the provisions of
the Agreement.

TRIPS Article 1.1: Members shall give effect to the provisions of this
Agreement. Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law
more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement, provided that
such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement. Members
shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the
provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice.

TRIPS Article 1.3: Members shall accord the treatment provided for in this
Agreement to the nationals of other Members. In respect of the relevant
intellectual property right, the nationals of other Members shall be understood
as those natural or legal persons that would meet the criteria for eligibility for
protection provided for in the Paris Convention (1967), the Berne Convention
(1971), the Rome Convention and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect
of Integrated Circuits, were all Members of the WTO members of those
conventions. Any Member availing itself of the possibilities provided in
paragraph 3 of Article 5 or paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Rome Convention
shall make a notification as foreseen in those provisions to the Council for
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the "Council for TRIPS").
See, India- Pharmaceutical Patents DS- 50 (for the proposition that countries have
the freedom to implement the TRIPS agreement within their own legal context
9
provided those legal means are legally sustainable within their own legal
system).
1.10 In the history of IP laws, we observe how the developed countries
inter-se developed IP rights law over the course of entire 19th century often
violating each other’s rights and having differential treatment and then
having evolved their legal system in harmony with each other’s IP rights
system. This evolved system was then lumped on to the developing world
through the TRIPS agreement.

In principle, there is no fault with the IP regime developed under TRIPS

but it did not give enough time to the developing world to accommodate
and mature to the level of the developed world. No special provisions
have been provided to the developing world. Even as far as the Least
Developed Countries (LDCs) are concerned only greater time period for
implementation of the same rules have been provided. There is no
concession on the rules and principles as such.

2.1 Most Favoured Nation Treatment Principle (“MFN”): Any

a. Advantage;
b. Favour;
c. Privilege;
d. Immunity

Granted by one member country to nationals of another member country is

immediately accorded to nationals of all other member countries.

10
Exceptions are provided in the MFN principle with respect to certain subject
matters:
a. International agreements on judicial assistance or law enforcement;
b. Rights granted under the Berne Convention (1971) or the Rome
Convention based on the treatment accorded in another country;
c. Rights of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting
organizations not provided under this agreement;
d. Rights deriving from pre – TRIPS international agreements.

Articles 3, 4 and 5 of TRIPS provide for National Treatment (“NT”) and Most
Favoured Nation Treatment (“MFN”) Principle as intrinsic to the TRIPS
regime. It also includes:
 Substantive standards of protection;
 Availability of IP rights;
 Acquisition of IP rights;
 Scope of IP rights;
 Maintenance of IP rights;
 Enforcement of IP rights as well as those affecting the use of such IP
rights which are protected under the TRIPS agreement;

3.1 Article 8 of TRIPS recognizes rights of member countries to adopt

measures for
a. Promoting public interest;
b. Preventing abuse of IP rights;
c. Improving public health;
d. Adopting measures consistent with TRIPS.

11
 TRIPS Article 8: Principles

1. Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations,

adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to
promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-
economic and technological development, provided that such measures are
consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
2. Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the
provisions of this Agreement, may be needed to prevent the abuse of
intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which
unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of
technology.

4.1 TRIPS Articles 7 and 8 together provide the rules for interpretation and
implementation of the rights and obligations under the TRIPS agreement.

TRIPS Article 7 is one of the few provisions which address the concerns of
developing countries as it includes in it the following (apart from
technological innovation):
a. Transfer and dissemination of technology;
b. Mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge;
c. Conducive to social and economic welfare;
d. Balance of rights and obligations.

12
4.2 The main purpose of IP rights protection through TRIPS has been
“technological innovation” and as a matter of fact almost all, if not all,
technological innovations still happen in the developed world and stakes
were really high for them to have TRIPS enforced through the Uruguay
Round of Negotiations (1986 – 94). For developing countries TRIPS Article 7
became the saving grace.

4.3 It is very pertinent that articles 7 and 8 have been included in the main
treaty of TRIPS and not just in the preamble. Thus, this provision is not just
illustrative; it is compulsory.

5.1 Often developed countries when entering into any kind of Bilateral
Investment Treaty (“BIT”) or forming a Regional Trading Organization
involving developing countries, ensure TRIPS plus or even stronger IP rights
regime as a precondition for forming such an association.

5.2 Patent protection and an incentive of a minimum of twenty years’ control

over the protected subject matter have been expected to encourage
investment in Research and Development. Though this point is hugely
debatable and there is again a developing – developed world divide both in
terms of approaching the subject as well as in evaluating its impact, it is
widely agreed that such long – term and wide protection has actually
inhibited innovation.

5.3 A very strong IPR regime does not ensure flow of technology to the Least
Developed Countries.

5.4 Under TRIPS Article 7 there should also be “dissemination of technology”

which is percolation of technology through informal mechanisms.

13
TRIPS Article 15 provides the protected subject matter under Trademarks:
Article 15: Protectable Subject Matter
1. Any sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the
goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings,
shall be capable of constituting a trademark. Such signs, in particular
words including personal names, letters, numerals, figurative elements
and combinations of colours as well as any combination of such signs,
shall be eligible for registration as trademarks. Where signs are not
inherently capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services,
Members may make registrability depend on distinctiveness acquired
through use. Members may require, as a condition of registration, that
signs be visually perceptible.

6.1 Copyright provides exclusive rights for fixed number of years whereas
trademarks provide limited rights in perpetuity.

6.2 Industrial designs are also offered protection under TRIPS.

6.3 TRIPS also evolved the concept of Geographical Indicators (“GI”) as a

recognized IP law principle deserving protection. Common examples are

14
Indian Basmati rice grown in Indian sub – continent, Darjeeling tea grown in
Darjeeling, India or Champagne grown in the Champagne district of France.

TRIPS Article 22: Protection of Geographical Indications

1. Geographical indications are, for the purposes of this Agreement,
indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a
Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given
quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially
attributable to its geographical origin.

7.1 Exceptions
Article 13
Case 2: US — Section 110(5) Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R

The Case concerned Section 101(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act, which allowed
the amplification of music broadcasts, without an authorization and a
payment of a fee, by food service and drinking establishments and by retail
establishments, provided that their size does not exceed a certain square
footage limit.

On being challenged by the European Union, the Panel observed that the
Section does violate Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement.

The reasoning of the report of the panel provides a very important guideline
for interpretation of Article 13:

1. The wording of Article 13 does not contain an express limitation in

terms of the categories of rights under copyright to which it may

15
 apply. It states that limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights can
only be made if three conditions are met:

 The limitations or exceptions are confined to certain special cases:

This requires that a limitation or exception in national legislation
should be clearly defined and should be narrow in its scope and reach.
On the other hand, a limitation or exception may be compatible with
the first condition even if it pursues a special purpose whose
underlying legitimacy in a normative sense cannot be discerned.

 They do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work:

This requires that the measure does not have a substantial market
presence, which would otherwise be deemed to conflict with normal
exploitation. For the purpose of such ascertainment, the both actual
and potential effects on the commercial and technological conditions
that prevail in the market currently or in the near future have to be
analysed.

 They do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the

right holder.
Here, "interests" were held to include those interests that are justifiable
in the light of the “objectives that underlie the protection of exclusive
rights” in addition to actual or potential economic advantage or
detriment; "prejudice" to connote damage, harm or injury; "Not
unreasonable" to connote a slightly stricter threshold than "reasonable"

It was also said by the Panel that a limitation or an exception is consistent

with Article 13 only if it fulfils each of the three conditions.

16
 2. The application of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement to the rights
provided under Articles 11(1) and 11bis (1) of the Berne Convention
(1971) as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement need not lead to
different standards from those applicable under the Berne Convention
(1971), given that the possibility of providing minor exceptions forms
part of the context of these articles.

Article 30
Case 3: Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products
WT/DS114/R

The following provisions under Canada's Patent Act: (i)”regulatory review

provision (Sec. 55.2(1))” and (ii)”stockpiling provision (Sec. 55.2(2))”, that
allowed general drug manufacturers to override, in certain situations, the
rights conferred on a patent owner were challenged by the European Union
as violative of Article 30 of TRIPs inter alia. The Panel concluded that these
measures do not violate Article 30 as they fulfil all the three criteria of Article
30. The panel analyses Article 30 and lays down inter alia the following
interpretations of the Article:

Article 30 establishes three criteria that must be met in order to qualify for an
exception:
(1) The exception must be "limited";
When a treaty uses the term "limited exception", the word "limited"
must be given a meaning separate from the limitation implicit in the
word "exception" itself. The term "limited exception" must therefore be
read to connote a narrow exception - one which makes only a small
diminution of the rights in question.

17
 (2) The exception must not "unreasonably conflict with normal
exploitation of the patent"
The normal practice of exploitation by patent owners, as with owners
of any other intellectual property right, is to exclude all forms of
competition that could detract significantly from the economic returns
anticipated from a patent's grant of market exclusivity.

(3) The exception must not "unreasonably prejudice the legitimate

interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests
of third parties".
The interest claimed on behalf of patent owners whose effective period
of market exclusivity had been reduced by delays in marketing
approval was neither so compelling nor so widely recognized that it
could be regarded as a "legitimate interest" within the meaning of
Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.

The three conditions are cumulative, each being a separate and independent
requirement that must be satisfied. Failure to comply with any one of the
three conditions results in the Article 30 exception being disallowed.

Article 31: The TRIPS does not define the term “Compulsory Licensing. “ But,
it enshrines the doctrine under Article 31 wherein use of a patented product
without the patent owner’s consent is envisaged.

Article 31 reads as follows:

“Where the law of a Member allows for other use of the subject matter of a patent
without the authorization of the right holder, including use by the government or
third parties authorized by the government, the following provisions shall be
respected:

18
(a) Authorization of such use shall be considered on its individual merits;

(b) Such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made
efforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms
and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable
period of time. This requirement may be waived by a Member in the case of a national
emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-
commercial use. In situations of national emergency or other circumstances of
extreme urgency, the right holder shall, nevertheless, be notified as soon as reasonably
practicable. In the case of public non-commercial use, where the government or
contractor, without making a patent search, knows or has demonstrable grounds to
know that a valid patent is or will be used by or for the government, the right holder
shall be informed promptly;

(c) The scope and duration of such use shall be limited to the purpose for which it was
authorized, and in the case of semi-conductor technology shall only be for public non-
commercial use or to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative
process to be anti-competitive;

(d) Such use shall be non-exclusive;

(e) Such use shall be non-assignable, except with that part of the enterprise or
goodwill which enjoys such use;
(f) Any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic
market of the Member authorizing such use;

(g) Authorization for such use shall be liable, subject to adequate protection of the
legitimate interests of the persons so authorized, to be terminated if and when the
circumstances which led to it cease to exist and are unlikely to recur. The competent

19
authority shall have the authority to review, upon motivated request, the continued
existence of these circumstances;

(h) The right holder shall be paid adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each
case, taking into account the economic value of the authorization;

(i) The legal validity of any decision relating to the authorization of such use shall be
subject to judicial review or other independent review by a distinct higher authority
in that Member;

(j) Any decision relating to the remuneration provided in respect of such use shall be
subject to judicial review or other independent review by a distinct higher authority
in that Member;

(k) Members are not obliged to apply the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (b)
and (f) where such use is permitted to remedy a practice determined after judicial or
administrative process to be anti-competitive. The need to correct anti-competitive
practices may be taken into account in determining the amount of remuneration in
such cases. Competent authorities shall have the authority to refuse termination of
authorization if and when the conditions which led to such authorization are likely to
recur;

(l) where such use is authorized to permit the exploitation of a patent ("the second
patent") which cannot be exploited without infringing another patent ("the first
patent"), the following additional conditions shall apply:
(i) The invention claimed in the second patent shall involve an important
technical advance of considerable economic significance in relation to the
invention claimed in the first patent;
(ii) The owner of the first patent shall be entitled to a cross-licence on
reasonable terms to use the invention claimed in the second patent; and

20
 (iii) The use authorized in respect of the first patent shall be non-assignable
except with the assignment of the second patent.”

8.1 Enforcement and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Enforcement
Under Article 9(6) of the Paris Convention, a country was under no obligation
to enact legislation permitting seizure or prohibiting importation of infringing
goods. Part III of the TRIPS Agreement makes it mandatory that “Members
shall ensure that enforcement procedures . . . permit effective action against any act of
infringement . . . covered by this Agreement,” including injunctive relief (Article
44), money damages (Article 45), and strong border control measures (Articles
51-60).
Members are also obligated to frame legislations for criminal prosecution --
including seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of infringing goods in specific
cases.

Dispute Resolution

Article 64 of the TRIPS agreement links the enforcement of the agreement

with the dispute settlement established under the WTO agreement. Without a
means of settling disputes, the laws are bare blank words. The WTO’s
procedure underscores the rule of law, and it makes the trading system more
secure and predictable. The system is based on clear rules and regulations.
Disputes are first referred to a Panel which submits its report. From that,
appeals on points of law are allowed to the Appellate Body.

9.1 Non Violation of TRIPS

Disputes generally arise when a Member Country shows or alleges the
violation of any of the provisions of an agreement by another Member

21
country. However, in some situations, a government can go to the Dispute
Settlement Body even without any provision of any agreement being violated.
This is known as a non-violation complaint. It is allowed if one government
can show that “it has been deprived of an expected benefit because of another
government’s action, or because of any other situation that exists”.

Article 64.2 of TRIPS contains a temporary restraint on bringing non-violation

complaints. This is called moratorium. It has been extended several times. As
of 2018, the moratorium is still in force.

10.1 Criticisms:
a. TRIPS essentially has nothing to do with trade directly and has ended
up prejudicing and restricting trade which is the mandate of WTO;
Perhaps the only case for IP and its linkages with trade is the
availability of border measures.
b. IP rights are domestic and territorial and governed by domestic laws
and regulations. There is no world patent; however, procedural
treaties administered by WIPO provide ease in the acquisition of IP
rights across several jurisdictions.
c. “One size fits all” approach is inappropriate for developing countries;
Hence, TRIPS Agreement allows immense policy space and
flexibilities. Many countries have used them over the last two
decades.
d. The rationale for TRIPS was trans-border and not domestic but
domestic rights and protection of IP has proliferated over the years.
This represents unilateral ratcheting up of IP laws through a
maximalist approach. The TRIPS Agreement only provides common
minimum standards as a floor but not the ceiling.

22
 Points to Remember

 TRIPS Agreement was an outcome of Uruguay Round Negotiations

which formed the WTO
 TRIPS provides standards of protection for various categories of IP
rights and a binding dispute settlement mechanism
 The Berne Convention (1886) and the Paris Convention (1883) were the
substantive IP conventions prior to the TRIPS Agreement. These are
administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).
 Substantive Articles of the Paris Convention and the Berne Convention
are part of the TRIPS Agreement Mutatis Mutandis
 Currently, there is a moratorium of raising non-violation complaints
relating to TRIPS at the ETO Dispute Settlement mechanism

Self-check Exercises

 What are the categories of IPRs included in the TRIPS Agreement

 What is the difference between National Treatment and the Most-Favoured

Nation provision in the TRIPS Agreement
 What are the objectives and principles of the TRIPS Agreement

 What are the standards of protection concerning different subject matter

involving geographical indications mandated in the TRIPS Agreement

23